Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Casting the return value of ... Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2024 21:23:53 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 29 Message-ID: <86plsskqp2.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <20240328105203.773@kylheku.com> <87frwatadu.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87bk6yt68v.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20240328142950.542@kylheku.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2024 06:23:53 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8f65be1c4faf38596d3aaac82be2db40"; logging-data="2598495"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1827nZekz2Of2T+reghiu7eZ/Vfs4qWqqw=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:1pNkoC7C2nKRyB2hsJ/13i9gADQ= sha1:bI+oUi3n0fsMYS9WP0d2yXOZCGY= Bytes: 2513 Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes: [gcc documentation talks about "forbidden extensions"] > The misconception is repeated in the GNU Conding Conventions. It might > have come from the same person. > > https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html > > But we do not follow either of these specifications rigidly, and > there are specific points on which we decided not to follow them, so > as to make the GNU system better for users. > > For instance, Standard C says that nearly all extensions to C are > prohibited. How silly! GCC implements many extensions, some of which > were later adopted as part of the standard. If you want these > constructs to give an error message as ?required? by the standard, > you must specify ?--pedantic?, which was implemented only so that we > can say ?GCC is a 100% implementation of the standard?, not because > there is any reason to actually use it. > > Standard C does not say that any extensions are prohibited. > How silly to think so, and write about it, and code a facet of the > compiler diagnostic system that way! Probably the people who wrote the gcc documentation mean something different by the word "extension" than the C standard does. It's not a good idea to do that, but it does provide a plausible explanation for why they wrote what they did.